Overall, I thought you played well in the beginning. I don't think you make a clear mistake until move 38. The first move that I think was consequential was 74 followed by 76. After 76, white is playing catch-up. White has more territory at that point, but white has no scope to make more. Black has all of the potential, and eventually black manages to claim enough to win decisively after white 124. I don't think you can call 76 the losing move, but if that move had been played so that white wasn't cut-off, it would have been a very different game.

You are having problems in the middle of the board because you play small moves when big moves are required. That is the common theme in my comments below.Some of your moves are so small that they are unworthy of any comment at all, as Ed aptly demonstrates.

Thanks to everyone -- the reviews are a big help. I just looked at another game of mine, and the same patterns appear. I am having difficulty finding the big moves, too timid to attack when I cannot read out the sequence, and cannot judge the correct direction.

I used to play chess (USCF Class A, mid 1800 ELO) prior to discovering go, and I had the same style: playing safe moves to try to get a small advantage and win an endgame. Maybe that's why I never reached 2000 ELO (expert level). I was already in my fifties when I switched to Go, so my recipe for studying is the same. I mainly do "tactics problems" (tsumego/life and death) and play, but maybe those are not enough to improve in Go.

I will carefully study the reviews several times. Next couple of games, I am going to concentrate on minimizing small moves, and exploit opportunities to attack.

For about 60 moves (~ 37 thru ~ 96), your winrate was near 100%.I believe it's very instructive to follow move by move and see how your rate zigzagged from ~100% to ~0%.See zbaduk ( with post 2's SGF ).

The winrate is an interesting information, but can be very sensitive to kyu mistakes. Leela 0.11 says that at move 96 White was leading by 10 points. At that stage of the game, it's very common to make 10-point mistakes.

Looking bot analyses, it seems that they want White to save the H9 stones.

For about 60 moves (~ 37 thru ~ 96), your winrate was near 100%.I believe it's very instructive to follow move by move and see how your rate zigzagged from ~100% to ~0%.See zbaduk ( with post 2's SGF ).

Thanks Ed. The zbaduk review is interesting.

The mystery to me is I cannot upload the original IGS SGF file, but the SGF from post 2 is accepted by zbaduk. May I ask what editing I need to do to get other SGFs to upload to zbaduk?

i actually don't know. An SGF is just a plain text file, and different Go apps have various degrees of compliance. Since SGF was created by Anders, SmartGo should be a 'gold standard'. Some text in the original SGF doesn't work with zbaduk (which is still in beta)... maybe we can post to the zbaduk thread...

the SGF in post 2 went thru Cgoban, and i manually deleted a whole bunch of tags at the very end node (probably the dead stones markers).

The game below is typical on how I lose -- I always mess up fighting for the center.

One of my teachers, a former insei who decided not to become a go professional but to go to college, told me that the center is about fighting strength. He didn't elaborate, but I got the message. As you probably know, it takes 10 stones to make a group with 2 eyes in the center. That means that it is not easy to make a live group in the center. It is easy to mess up. That's one possible reason why you lose in the center.

But there is another possible reason, which was more important in this game, IMHO, and that is neglect of the center. The center is not as important in go as it is in chess, but it is quite important, particularly in the middle game. The center affects other parts of the board that are not yet settled. This game has a number of moves by you that neglect the center. That does not necessarily mean that they are bad moves. In fact, you outplayed your opponent early on. But if you pay more attention to the center early in the play, you will not have so much trouble later on.

Here are a couple of examples, already in the middle game, where you neglected the center. I may be repeating what others have said, but this is important. :

came into White's framework (moyo). You responded at a, which saves a few points. But you have been attacking Black's group in the center. That group has no eyes yet. You should continue your attack. Not that you will kill it, but you can make a lot of trouble for it. Also, the Black wall on the left does not yet have eyes, either. The one space jump into the top center, , attacks both groups. Black will not have an easy time dealing with the dual attack. Be sure to keep sente and invade somewhere in the top right quadrant. The 3-3 invasion will probably be good, but where to invade will depend on how the center fight goes. Because of the difficulty of living in the center, Black will probably mess up, not you.

You replied to with , allowing Black to push through and cut. was good, but now the tables have turned. Instead of attacking two Black groups, your two isolated stones are being attacked. In the fighting you have a good chance to cut off and capture and , but now it is White who is scrambling and Black who is taking profit.

Instead of continuing to fight in the center, White invaded the top right corner, thus strengthening Black in the center. That is understandable, as it is not at all obvious how to handle the orphans. White 104 invited Black 105, which eliminated the possibility of cutting off the stones. At this point, that may have been a remote possibility, but White let Black connect those stones, basically for free. And then White 106 basically ceded the center to Black. OC, White did make a live group there, but could have done more. Black's center group still has no eyes. The center was where the action was. White should have seized the opportunity to play there.

protected the cutting point at b, but you can tell that this is not a good move because of the stone nearby. OC, the stone does not prevent the cut, but if you already had on the board you would not play until much, much later in the game. And you still have the cutting point at a.

, which you eventually played, is a strong, center oriented play. Now if Black plays at a, which he should have done before, White can block at b. Also, if Black cuts at c, White can extend to d, wih a strong attack against the cutting stone.

White played to save the stones, which was pretty much an admission of failure of White's invasion. At this stage of the game, taking away a few potential points while strengthening the opponent is not a worthy goal. However, White came out OK because of Black's bad play, starting with the overplay at .

If cuts, gives Black bad shape (an empty triangle) and then goes after and . Even without reading we can tell that White has the advantage in this fight. White has 4 dame and Black has 3 dame. Also, White is very strong in the neighborhood. And even if Black manages to capture the stones, that will be a good sacrifice for White because White will get central strength in exchange. Heads I win, tails you lose.

If captures the stone, pushes triumphantly into the center, attacking Black on both sides. To save his group near the White strength Black may push out into the center, but with each extension the White group gets stronger and stronger, and Black's other group looks more and more pitiful. There is a saying that thickness, which White has in the bottom left, is for fighting, and this is a good example. This fight is a great success for White.

During one of my frustration moments, when I was ready to give up Go and go back to Chess, I consulted a go professional on the internet regarding my problems with the center. I was told that I will "know" when to move to the center when I have played enough games. I went to consult another professional, this time in person. After showing a game (which is very similar to the one I attached in this post), the professional pointed to move mistakes, but I did not get any big (excuse the pun) picture assessment of what is wrong with my game. So in essence, the advice I got was to keep doing life and death and play more games.

This thread helped me so much more than either of my professional consultations. Last night, I ended my losing streak and easily beat a 12K+ at IGS by just reminding myself what Joaz wrote above "THINK BIG!!!"

After showing a game (which is very similar to the one I attached in this post), the professional pointed to move mistakes, but I did not get any big (excuse the pun) picture assessment of what is wrong with my game. So in essence, the advice I got was to keep doing life and death and play more games.

This sounds very asian to me.

No rules of thumb, principles, heuristics or "why". Just what is wrong and maybe what a better choice is.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum